That knid of tihng is lses obuivos in ttaeuxl iimorotnfan becusae the biran can sopt snlpleig errors and the like and amlsot miglaalcy crceort them as yoru'e ranideg. I wo'nt bilevee it utinl ntcaerft crmiofns it.
Kitten are (...) impervious to all types of magic, including magic cast by flapjacks. Physical combat is ineffective againts them, so the only conceivable way to defeat a kitten is to trap it in a laundry basket.
I agree that "I agree" / "I disagree" comment voting is a problem. My idea:
* Make it clear to meta-moderators that their job is to judge whether the moderation was based on quality, not on purely emotional agreeal.
* Give moderators the option to enter a short reason why the posting is of high/low quality. For example:
"-1, factually wrong: $person was born 1970, not 1986" "+1, poster is clearly an expert on the subject" "+1, well-reasoned argument that changed my view on the subject" "+1, hot grits joke" (j/k)
(You might ask: "why not write a reply instead in these cases?" A posting does not replace moderation; moderation scores are needed for filtering. Moderation reasons are also expected to be shorter. Maybe the reasons should be publicly visible (but not the moderator name - to prevent metamod abuse)).
* Make Overrated and Underrated metamoderatable. Moderators should give reasons like "the posting is not bad, but is not a +5 since these arguments have been said and answered many times and the user was apparently just upvoted because he sounds confident/smart".
Sure, this is not watertight; we can't expect moderators to write a paper on the subject to justify their vote. But I suppose that a large majority of the agreeal vorters would not bother to fake a reason and that's good enough. Meta-moderation would also be more fun. Your thoughts?
On usenet, you take a lot more time to write things in a well-articulated way that you would like the public to read. In IRC you just say whatever sillyness comes to mind and expect that only the people who are currently in the channel and active will read it.
Another poster made a similar analogy; my version: Logging usenet is like making an archive of letters to the editor. Logging IRC is like taping what you say in the pub or a party.
Anyway, using an IRC channel is a privilege, not a right; if the owners say you can't log, you can't. I think legal action would be appropriate. Yes, they could take the logs into another country, but at least it would be more work.
Because an individual is conscious while an abstract thing like "the human species/gene pool" is not. Fortunately, many of us value the good of the former more than the good of the latter (trying to value the latter one more tends to lead to less-than-nice results.). This is not a game of Civ.
Hmm I just decided to write a real reply in addition to the suggestion to upmod.
You totally hit the nail on the head there. People like to tell the "it releases dopamine and thus mechanically makes you take it again"-story. But IME, that's only one side of the story, and temporary relief of mental states such as depression is at least as strong a motivator.
IMHO, when your life is going well, it's relatively easy to avoid reinforcers; but if your entire day is bleak and anhedonic, anything that changes that can be very addictive. It's not simply that you're a slave to dopamine; actually when your state of mind is really bad (in an apparently "low-level" way, not the kind where you can just snap out of it), you can make the argument to yourself that a mood-increasing substance or activity would be rational because it would make your mind work "better".
Btw, if I was you, I wouldn't call food, sex etc. "addictions" - in order to avoid pointless semantic arguments that distract from your very real point:)
The trait might be somewhat autistic, but I think you are unfair to say that people with autistic traits are "small-minded", "mediocre" and "shallow" (well, it's not clear whether you are generalizing to all of them. Sorry if I misread you.)
I don't understand why you get so mad about this... so some people may be obsessive about details like this, that still doesn't automatically make them stupid or evil. There are much worse things... That you get so unfriendly about it suggests to me that this could be a slight case of "we hate in others what we hate in ourselves". But I don't know you at all so that's just a wild guess.
Anyway, not everyone who is bothered by lack of punctuation etc. is obsessive about it. It does make your text a bit harder to read even for "normal" people. I agree that formatting doesn't matter if you are saying something really interesting. But I don't know in advance whether some comment is interesting, and since I have to filter what I read online anyway, I'd rather read something more readable.
Also look at it like this, you only have to spend the formatting effort once, but it saves people "deciphering" effort many times.
Yes, though for me the problem is not time, but motivation (I don't find exercise fun at all) and figuring out where to go/what sport to do. This gadget sounds like it could actually be useful for me (it could even solve two problems at once since I tend to sit at horribly unergonomic positions in my chair).
Granted, what I wrote wasn't exactly unambiguous (and I'm not a native speaker myself), but as far as I'm aware, if you have some statement involving some variables x and y, "fixed x" is used to emphasize that x may not depend on y (the quantifier for x is to the left of the one for y).
But yeah, actually in this case the distinction is somewhat important so maybe I should have wrote it out more explicitly.
Hint: Notice the words "fixed" and "systematically". I thought mentioning the issue casually like that would be a good balance between confusing the newcomers and triggering the computability theorists. Unfortunately I seem to have overestimated their reading comprehension skills compared to their desire to write condescending posts.
The problem is that it's impossible to write a fixed algorithm that will decide whether the algorithm you generated computes a function with a given property (it's impossible for any non-trivial property). E.g. you can't even systematically decide whether or not the algorithm you generated will ever halt.
Good point. Consider though that they will probably have trancended evolution and "rewritten" themselves. Though I'll be optimistic and say that a civilization advanced enough to do this would rewrite themselves to have more altruism, not less:)
By the way, I always found this silly in most sci-fi... Advanced technology but no changes to psychology.
IMHO the posters talking about conquering have watched/played too many movies/computer games. Heck, even we humans are already starting to realize that conquering is a bit pointless.
Since many slashdotters think crticially when it's a more on-topic story, it really makes me sad that some are just accepting the media drivel here.
For starters, what do alternative uses of a substance have to do with anything? Water is used in nuclear reactors, oh noes! Guilt by association through alternative uses is a stupid emotional argument. (And before you try to argue that water is usually used legitimately and this isn't: I'd say that there is far more recreational use than use as a weapon).
Don't get me wrong, GHB isn't harmless. People have died from overdoses or combinations with alcohol and it generally has a very steep dose-respone curve. Of course, dangerousness has hardly anything to do with whether it should be legal (this holds both from a pragmatic and an idealistic POV). Just my 10^-2
Artificially limiting the production of patented medications (since those who can't afford the prices for patented medications won't buy them)
Very large marketing efforts
I'd venture the guess that this quite outweighs government inefficiency.
Also, as has already been said in the comments multiple times but can't be reiterated enough, the government already pays anyway through research grants and healthcare.
I will resist the urge to be unkind and mumble something about irony - but don't you think that there are some slightly more important inventions than a new distraction? Great, so now I can have my attention and deliberation disrupted by The Web 2.0 Experience even when on the bus:/
You imply that adults "weigh" the long-term consequences of smoking and then make a rational choice to continue smoking.
I think the argument was about beginning to smoke. IMHO someone that first starts smoking as an adult would be far more likely to have weighed the pros and cons - as opposed to youths, who are more suspectible to peer pressure.
Continuing to smoke if you started in youth is a whole different beast.
Btw, for any rational adults considering whether to start smoking, in my opinion nicotine gum would be a better choice;)
Slashdot Mirror
no text
... or people who tend to trash their harddrives also tend to buy FooStor PCs for some reason :)
Kitten are (...) impervious to all types of magic, including magic cast by flapjacks. Physical combat is ineffective againts them, so the only conceivable way to defeat a kitten is to trap it in a laundry basket.
Sources and further reading: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Kitten#Kitten_Feeding_Behaviour
I agree that "I agree" / "I disagree" comment voting is a problem. My idea:
* Make it clear to meta-moderators that their job is to judge whether the moderation was based on quality, not on purely emotional agreeal.
* Give moderators the option to enter a short reason why the posting is of high/low quality. For example:
"-1, factually wrong: $person was born 1970, not 1986"
"+1, poster is clearly an expert on the subject"
"+1, well-reasoned argument that changed my view on the subject"
"+1, hot grits joke" (j/k)
(You might ask: "why not write a reply instead in these cases?"
A posting does not replace moderation; moderation scores are needed for filtering. Moderation reasons are also expected to be shorter. Maybe the reasons should be publicly visible (but not the moderator name - to prevent metamod abuse)).
* Make Overrated and Underrated metamoderatable. Moderators should give reasons like "the posting is not bad, but is not a +5 since these arguments have been said and answered many times and the user was apparently just upvoted because he sounds confident/smart".
Sure, this is not watertight; we can't expect moderators to write a paper on the subject to justify their vote. But I suppose that a large majority of the agreeal vorters would not bother to fake a reason and that's good enough. Meta-moderation would also be more fun. Your thoughts?
On usenet, you take a lot more time to write things in a well-articulated way that you would like the public to read. In IRC you just say whatever sillyness comes to mind and expect that only the people who are currently in the channel and active will read it.
Another poster made a similar analogy; my version:
Logging usenet is like making an archive of letters to the editor. Logging IRC is like taping what you say in the pub or a party.
Anyway, using an IRC channel is a privilege, not a right; if the owners say you can't log, you can't. I think legal action would be appropriate. Yes, they could take the logs into another country, but at least it would be more work.
Because an individual is conscious while an abstract thing like "the human species/gene pool" is not. Fortunately, many of us value the good of the former more than the good of the latter (trying to value the latter one more tends to lead to less-than-nice results.). This is not a game of Civ.
I play which move I like. I won't let these pesky "total outcomes" affect my life in that way. No way I'll get the sucker's payoff just because some guys say that mutual cooperation would be better. (And so on ...)
Hmm I just decided to write a real reply in addition to the suggestion to upmod.
:)
You totally hit the nail on the head there. People like to tell the "it releases dopamine and thus mechanically makes you take it again"-story. But IME, that's only one side of the story, and temporary relief of mental states such as depression is at least as strong a motivator.
IMHO, when your life is going well, it's relatively easy to avoid reinforcers; but if your entire day is bleak and anhedonic, anything that changes that can be very addictive. It's not simply that you're a slave to dopamine; actually when your state of mind is really bad (in an apparently "low-level" way, not the kind where you can just snap out of it), you can make the argument to yourself that a mood-increasing substance or activity would be rational because it would make your mind work "better".
Some experimental evidence
Btw, if I was you, I wouldn't call food, sex etc. "addictions" - in order to avoid pointless semantic arguments that distract from your very real point
no text
Pretty ironic to have somone who flames in response to a level-headed response to a flame talk about social behaviour...
The trait might be somewhat autistic, but I think you are unfair to say that people with autistic traits are "small-minded", "mediocre" and "shallow" (well, it's not clear whether you are generalizing to all of them. Sorry if I misread you.)
I don't understand why you get so mad about this... so some people may be obsessive about details like this, that still doesn't automatically make them stupid or evil. There are much worse things... That you get so unfriendly about it suggests to me that this could be a slight case of "we hate in others what we hate in ourselves". But I don't know you at all so that's just a wild guess.
Anyway, not everyone who is bothered by lack of punctuation etc. is obsessive about it. It does make your text a bit harder to read even for "normal" people. I agree that formatting doesn't matter if you are saying something really interesting. But I don't know in advance whether some comment is interesting, and since I have to filter what I read online anyway, I'd rather read something more readable.
Also look at it like this, you only have to spend the formatting effort once, but it saves people "deciphering" effort many times.
OK, who else thought of this first?
:)
Yes, though for me the problem is not time, but motivation (I don't find exercise fun at all) and figuring out where to go/what sport to do. This gadget sounds like it could actually be useful for me (it could even solve two problems at once since I tend to sit at horribly unergonomic positions in my chair).
Granted, what I wrote wasn't exactly unambiguous (and I'm not a native speaker myself), but as far as I'm aware, if you have some statement involving some variables x and y, "fixed x" is used to emphasize that x may not depend on y (the quantifier for x is to the left of the one for y). But yeah, actually in this case the distinction is somewhat important so maybe I should have wrote it out more explicitly.
Hint: Notice the words "fixed" and "systematically". I thought mentioning the issue casually like that would be a good balance between confusing the newcomers and triggering the computability theorists. Unfortunately I seem to have overestimated their reading comprehension skills compared to their desire to write condescending posts.
No hard feelings ;)
The problem is that it's impossible to write a fixed algorithm that will decide whether the algorithm you generated computes a function with a given property (it's impossible for any non-trivial property). E.g. you can't even systematically decide whether or not the algorithm you generated will ever halt.
Good point. Consider though that they will probably have trancended evolution and "rewritten" themselves. Though I'll be optimistic and say that a civilization advanced enough to do this would rewrite themselves to have more altruism, not less :)
By the way, I always found this silly in most sci-fi... Advanced technology but no changes to psychology.
IMHO the posters talking about conquering have watched/played too many movies/computer games. Heck, even we humans are already starting to realize that conquering is a bit pointless.
oh, but on the positive side, at least some posters pointed it out before me, so I guess slashdot is still better than most other sites :)
Since many slashdotters think crticially when it's a more on-topic story, it really makes me sad that some are just accepting the media drivel here.
For starters, what do alternative uses of a substance have to do with anything? Water is used in nuclear reactors, oh noes! Guilt by association through alternative uses is a stupid emotional argument. (And before you try to argue that water is usually used legitimately and this isn't: I'd say that there is far more recreational use than use as a weapon).
Don't get me wrong, GHB isn't harmless. People have died from overdoses or combinations with alcohol and it generally has a very steep dose-respone curve. Of course, dangerousness has hardly anything to do with whether it should be legal (this holds both from a pragmatic and an idealistic POV). Just my 10^-2
The current system wastes total wealth by:
I'd venture the guess that this quite outweighs government inefficiency.
Also, as has already been said in the comments multiple times but can't be reiterated enough, the government already pays anyway through research grants and healthcare.
no text
A trend-setting toy is still a toy.
Maybe you have no sense of perspective.I will resist the urge to be unkind and mumble something about irony - but don't you think that there are some slightly more important inventions than a new distraction? Great, so now I can have my attention and deliberation disrupted by The Web 2.0 Experience even when on the bus :/
No hard feelings :)
nitrous oxide is dangerously cold when it's expanding from a capsule.
I think the argument was about beginning to smoke. IMHO someone that first starts smoking as an adult would be far more likely to have weighed the pros and cons - as opposed to youths, who are more suspectible to peer pressure.
Continuing to smoke if you started in youth is a whole different beast.
Btw, for any rational adults considering whether to start smoking, in my opinion nicotine gum would be a better choice ;)